There is a dark underbelly of libertarianism that needs to be exposed to the light of reason. Quite often, the racists, people like Ron Paul, hide behind libertarianism to spread their hatred for blacks, Jews, gays, atheists, whomever doesn’t fit into their narrow club of good and proper people. The reason why this occurs is because political freedom is not a virtue, and cannot be. When a libertarian claims that a business owner is free to discriminate and not hire blacks, Jews, gays, atheists, etc., the libertarian is not promoting some abstraction called “freedom” but bigotry outright. The claim that “freedom” is what is being protected is just a smokescreen to spread hatred.
If one is promoting the freedom for someone to be a racist, then one is simply promoting racism, not freedom. But, it sounds better when people like Paul claim that they are promoting freedom, and not racism. Hence, the subterfuge. The problem for the libertarian apologists is extensive. The bottom line is that freedom in and of itself is meaningless. We cannot admire someone for being free, that is simply some ill-defined state. It is what a person does with their so-called freedom that is important, and if a person uses their freedom to be a racist, then their freedom is worthless, harmful, and should be opposed.
It seems to me you are saying that his libertarianism is all, really, racism. But then it would really be odd that he takes so many controversial stances that are libertarian and which have nothing to do with race.
I don’t see any reason to simplify his positions and make them into one. He could be a person who has good and bad ideas. He could have political ideas that you disagree with but are sincere suggestions for how society should be run, and which are not secretly motivated by racism. Many of his critiques are about polices, as far as I can see, that damage minorities at least as much as other races.
I get your Point about freedom, and I don’t Believe one should be free to discriminate profressionally - with customers, would be tenants, clients, inmates, students, whatever. I Think the core argument you are putting forward has merit, though I Think even some defenders of the position need not be motivated by racism, but it does end up supporting racism.
But I disagree with the reduction of Paul to really being only about racism and that his libertarianism is a sham.
Like his support for child rapists? Conspiracy theorists? I merely used Paul as one example, the larger problem lies with the fact libertarianism is a meaningless philosophy, which can be used to justify racism, sexism, anti-Semitism, gay-bashing, atheist-bashing, etc. When any libertarian, including Paul, claims he is standing for the “freedom” of a business owner to be a racist, how is he standing for “freedom”? How is the “unfree” racist business owner distinguishable from the “free” one? And, how does hiding behind the word “freedom” ever justify the irrational and harmful behavior of racism?
Paul may sincerely believe in libertarianism, but this is only so he can promote his racism, gay bashing, bashing of atheists, Jews, the promotion of pseudo-science, and conspiracy theories. In each case, he never has to admit that he is for the underlying evil conduct, he can simply claim that he is fighting for people’s “freedom” to behave in such a manner.
Freedom is not a virtue, so its use politically leads to the justification of absurd conduct. It is just a word sprinkled over hideous conduct to make it more palatable. I’m all for removing the use of “freedom” as a justification for hatred. That security blanket needs to be stripped out of the hands of Paul and everyone else.
That one is fairly easy… Just as there is freedom of or to, there is freedom from. If you’ve looked at all the defensive arguments against homosexuality, all could be an expression of the desire to be free from. Of course, there is a great deal of conflated “reasons” offered as a convenient smokescreen, but freedom has been twisted around to support suppression. IANOTT has hit on a compelling observation of not just libertrianism, but of much of the political dialogue of the extreme right. Look at all the chatter from the religious right. Instead of practicing their religion for themselves and their families, they demand the “freedom” to coerce and suppress all of us heathens.
The real absurdity of the libertarian is in the myopic view of the “businessman”. The libertarian cannot understand how the state could intervene and force a businessman to serve blacks, because the libertarian does not understand how the world works. Businessmen do not spring forth whole-formed from the brow of Zeus, they work in their community, at the grace of their community, and serve a purpose in their community. Businesses gain concessions for their operation from the state because, in general, we all like businesses. But we do not need all businesses and those that do not work for our benefit need not exist.
I agreed with you on that issue. I Think rather clearly. I don’t agree with all of Paul’s positions, but I do agree with some. It seemed like you wanted to simplify him and I don’t Think that is helpful.
So you are a psychic. As I said it would be very strange for him to then have taken so many stands on economic matters, positions that would not add to racism, etc., but would also make him a harder sell to most voters.
Paul has managed to bring views counter to the centers of Power into mainstream news. Closer than anyone else in my lifetime. He can get it on the headlines of newspapers. I probably disagree with some of his stances more than you do James, but I am so glad he has managed to do what he has, despite these. So when I read someone saying that really ALL his positions are really about X, it ends up seeming simply like a shut up to anything outside a constructed mind.
The emperor got to be the Emperor by taking advantage of the ignorance and confusion of others and does anything and everything in his power to ensure its continuance so as to ensure that no one and nothing is free (else he wouldn’t be the Emperor of them)…
…including promoting such thoughts as “The Absurdity of Freedom” and “Constitutions are irrelevant papers that need to evolve (with my influence)” and “the control of currency should never be placed into the hands of the foolish people” and “people are merely animals anyway”… and a great many more that you hear every day, all utilizing the “mainstream media” for unnoticed, aka “hypnotic”, persuasion.
Arguing with of of his mindless drones is a bit pointless.
Remember the Devil’s motto; “Make it look good, safe, innocent, and wise… until it is too late to choose otherwise.”
Just try to find one person today who isn’t being subjugated by that technique.
What if a business owner isn’t racist but all his customers are? What if he would love to hire the most qualified person regardless of race, but for practical reasons cannot? Should he be forced to higher a person, or people, his racist customers won’t like or do business with and essentially put himself out of business?
The absurdity of the OP is that he/she seems to believe that freedom is absurd because people will do things he/she personally doesn’t like.
I like how the leftists (which I assume you are correct me if im wrong) call for freedom, Egalitarianism and Tolerance…until someone comes around promoting something they don’t like.
The best business minded people have money in their mind not ethnicity, religion etc. If you are right for the job you are hired, if you have money, get your butt in here and spend it. Anything else is too costly for the businessminded.